Full Version: G'bye Tomcat
Hmmm.... How much does a Navy surplus fighter cost?
If you have to ask, it costs too much.
It's a sad day, but a well earned one. Seeing the Tomcat take off from Cavlerton, back when the fighter was in it's heyday, is a life-experience. Some planes may be faster, more lethal, ever slightly cheaper, but there's nothing that compares to seeing the 'Cat in action.
Highway to the danger zone...
The F-18 is not as versital as the Tomcat. It is to take up the slack until the Raptor comes on line.
| QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Aug 17 2006, 09:24 AM) |
| The F-18 is not as versital as the Tomcat. It is to take up the slack until the Raptor comes on line. |
Yes, the intent is for the JSF to come fully on line and replace most everything. We'll see how well that works.
The saddest day in aviation was when they decomissioned the F-14. What a beautiful airplane. I just saw one up in Tillamook, OR at the Tillamook Naval Air Station Air Museum (for yous that didn't know, it was one of the locations for the blimp hangers of WWII). I recommend that place highly if you're ever in the area. They have tons of awesome aircraft, and unlike a lot of museums, theirs are for the most part (and I mean very few exceptions) flying. Awesome!
The saddest day in aviation was when they decomissioned the F-14. What a beautiful airplane. I just saw one up in Tillamook, OR at the Tillamook Naval Air Station Air Museum (for yous that didn't know, it was one of the locations for the blimp hangers of WWII). I recommend that place highly if you're ever in the area. They have tons of awesome aircraft, and unlike a lot of museums, theirs are for the most part (and I mean very few exceptions) flying. Awesome!
Been a while since I was really into combat planes, but...
The text in the F-35 link listed that it would be replacing the F-18; it didn't say anything about the F-14 that I saw.
And regarding the comment about versatility: The F-18, as I understand is a multi-role air-superiority fighter/bomber (an attack platform: drop a bomb on target and fight your way out) whereas the F-14 is a long-range interceptor (patrol around your carrier for hours on end and lob missles at anything that gets too close.) That's like comparing... I dunno, archers to fencers. (Gimme a break, it's too early for a better analogy.) You might find one to be cooler, but as to which is better depends on the situation. I don't know if either is more versatile, as neither one would be particularly good at the other's job.
I'm surprised then that the F-18 can even fill-in for the F-14. But then, I'm drawing on the memories of the sixteen-year-old me who read a lot more about this stuff.
I also have a bias towards the F/A-18, that being what's used up here in the Great White North (as the CF-18), but I always questioned the choice. Very short range and relatively low speed for the amount of space we have. And why an attack plane? The F-15 seemed smarter to me...
The text in the F-35 link listed that it would be replacing the F-18; it didn't say anything about the F-14 that I saw.
And regarding the comment about versatility: The F-18, as I understand is a multi-role air-superiority fighter/bomber (an attack platform: drop a bomb on target and fight your way out) whereas the F-14 is a long-range interceptor (patrol around your carrier for hours on end and lob missles at anything that gets too close.) That's like comparing... I dunno, archers to fencers. (Gimme a break, it's too early for a better analogy.) You might find one to be cooler, but as to which is better depends on the situation. I don't know if either is more versatile, as neither one would be particularly good at the other's job.
I'm surprised then that the F-18 can even fill-in for the F-14. But then, I'm drawing on the memories of the sixteen-year-old me who read a lot more about this stuff.
I also have a bias towards the F/A-18, that being what's used up here in the Great White North (as the CF-18), but I always questioned the choice. Very short range and relatively low speed for the amount of space we have. And why an attack plane? The F-15 seemed smarter to me...
*sniff* A sad day indeed.
But sadly it all makes sence. There hasent been a real call for a pure fighter aircraft in many years, and once the phoenix missle (remember those things?) was out dated, it really was only a matter of time. Add to that the high turn over time needed to keep the big swing wing in the air...
*Edit*
And for some reason I dont see the JSF replacing the A-10 anytime in the future. Replacing a very durable, slow, and lethal-as-all-hell-in-a-handbasket, close support fighter with a multi role bent.
Hell, wasent the f-16 supposed to replace the A-10 too?
But sadly it all makes sence. There hasent been a real call for a pure fighter aircraft in many years, and once the phoenix missle (remember those things?) was out dated, it really was only a matter of time. Add to that the high turn over time needed to keep the big swing wing in the air...
*Edit*
And for some reason I dont see the JSF replacing the A-10 anytime in the future. Replacing a very durable, slow, and lethal-as-all-hell-in-a-handbasket, close support fighter with a multi role bent.
Hell, wasent the f-16 supposed to replace the A-10 too?
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| Been a while since I was really into combat planes, but... The text in the F-35 link listed that it would be replacing the F-18; it didn't say anything about the F-14 that I saw. And regarding the comment about versatility: The F-18, as I understand is a multi-role air-superiority fighter/bomber (an attack platform: drop a bomb on target and fight your way out) whereas the F-14 is a long-range interceptor (patrol around your carrier for hours on end and lob missles at anything that gets too close.) That's like comparing... I dunno, archers to fencers. (Gimme a break, it's too early for a better analogy.) You might find one to be cooler, but as to which is better depends on the situation. I don't know if either is more versatile, as neither one would be particularly good at the other's job. I'm surprised then that the F-18 can even fill-in for the F-14. But then, I'm drawing on the memories of the sixteen-year-old me who read a lot more about this stuff. I also have a bias towards the F/A-18, that being what's used up here in the Great White North (as the CF-18), but I always questioned the choice. Very short range and relatively low speed for the amount of space we have. And why an attack plane? The F-15 seemed smarter to me... |
There actually are two different aircraft out there, both going by the name "F-18" - the original Hornet, and the "Super Hornet" F-18 E/F series.
The Super Hornet was billed as an upgrade, to fool the idiots in Congress into funding what was essentially a new weapon system during a time when a lot of new stuff was getting cancelled. It's several feet longer, several thousand pounds heavier, has different engines, a different wing... basically a new design masquerading as a different model.
Anyway, it's the Super Hornet, rather than the original Hornet, that's the replacement for the F-14.
And since it's only been in service since the early 90's, I don't think the F-35 is going to be replacing it anytime soon. Alsow, while I admittedly haven't read much about the F-35, I don't see how a small, one-engine aircraft is going to be functionally replacing a much larger, twin-engined one... (which itself was specifically scaled up to take over for the enormous F-14s and A-6s)
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| The saddest day in aviation was when they decomissioned the F-14. |
No. It was the decommissioning of the SR-71 Blackbird. I know that satellites do its job better and cheaper, but goddamn it, that plane is the coolest thing with wings ever conceived by the mind of man.
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) |
| that plane is the coolest thing with wings ever conceived by the mind of man. |
If you can call them wings. But yeah, that was an absolutely gorgeous jet (manned missile?) And you know, not one was ever shot down.
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) | ||
No. It was the decommissioning of the SR-71 Blackbird. I know that satellites do its job better and cheaper, but goddamn it, that plane is the coolest thing with wings ever conceived by the mind of man. |
...but for research purposes, the SR71 was pulled back out of mothballs.
As to the main subject of this thread, the tribute gallery was sweet I particularly loved the shot of the pilot nudging mach 1. I have a photo of an F-4 I took at Abbotsford back in '86 where the pilot put on a similar display. You can clearly see the shockwave.
I've also seen "Big Tom" on numerous occasions at airshows and it was always an impressive aircraft to watch go through it's paces.
I'm terribly sad to see the F-14s go but it was their time. We've been using some of them (at least the A/B) since the end of Vietnam, thats alot of airframe stress that builds up over the years from Carrier take-offs (Catapult launches) and carrier landings (tailhooks). It would be terribly cost inefficient to try and refit the F-14s to keep going. Not to mention that their ordanance is so old, they haven't made any new phoenixes since their initial conception. I also don't see the F/A-18E or F replacing it in the capacity of an AS fighter OR as a bomber. The 18s are multirole vipers, like the 16s. The 14s and 15s were/are energy dogfighters.
Speaking on that, chances are you'll see F-15s starting to go around 2011.
Speaking on that, chances are you'll see F-15s starting to go around 2011.
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| And regarding the comment about versatility: The F-18, as I understand is a multi-role air-superiority fighter/bomber (an attack platform: drop a bomb on target and fight your way out) whereas the F-14 is a long-range interceptor (patrol around your carrier for hours on end and lob missles at anything that gets too close.) That's like comparing... I dunno, archers to fencers. (Gimme a break, it's too early for a better analogy.) |
Not quite true. Originally the F-14 was designed as an air superiority fighter, yes. However it was since modified for use in the air to ground role as well. During Desert Storm, the F-14 was used for air to ground attack and forward air controller missions, in addition to air superiority.
Sad days:
1. Decommissioning of the F-14.
1.1. Decommissioning of the SR-71.
1. Decommissioning of the F-14.
1.1. Decommissioning of the SR-71.
didn't this happen a few months ago?
It has been a while.
Don't interrupt his grieving process though.
Don't interrupt his grieving process though.
Yeah, but they "officially" decommissioned the SR-71. Doesn't mean they didn't keep one or two on standby....
| QUOTE (BookWyrm @ Aug 18 2006, 01:14 AM) |
| Yeah, but they "officially" decommissioned the SR-71. Doesn't mean they didn't keep one or two on standby.... |
or they finally had good enough sat coverage that they really didnt need it anymore.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) |
| didn't this happen a few months ago? |
the announcment wqent through but the planes were still flying. I think they've been retiring the airwings as ships come home, so shipsi n the Gulf might have still had their f-14's even though they were officially retired months ago. Once the ship comes home, that's it.
To be overly simplistic the F-18 is a dog fighter, like the F-16. The F-14 and F-15 are supposed to do it all. Heck they're even rated as 3rd strike weapons if the s*** hits the fan big time. That level of versitility enabled the military to squeak through tight times in the 70's. Sort of "if we can only have one plane, let's have it do multiple jobs since congress won't let us have 5 planes."
I recently saw a Raptor at an airshow, At first I thought it was an F-14 (I was outside the show, I worked near Willow Grove NAS, then I saw it move and the damn thing seemed to defy the laws of aeronautics. The jets have a degree of flexibility and the thing was unbelievable.
| QUOTE (BookWyrm) |
| Yeah, but they "officially" decommissioned the SR-71. Doesn't mean they didn't keep one or two on standby.... |
They sold them to the X-Men.
| QUOTE (JongWK) | ||
They sold them to the X-Men. |
...after they let Reed Richards tinker with them to install VTOL & all the wiz bang countermeasures.
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) | ||
No. It was the decommissioning of the SR-71 Blackbird. |
No, it was the day they scrapped the English Electric Lightning. They still have one of those at the local airfield. Fixed to the ground by steel and concrete but it still looks as impressive as ever.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||||
...after they let Reed Richards tinker with them to install VTOL & all the wiz bang countermeasures. |
You forgot the long-term bound air elemental maintaining a levitate spell.
Great, now when the hell are they going to retire the EA-6B? I was in a Marine Prowler squadron, and some of the airframes we're still flying are older than anybody in the squadrons!
Then again, I've always felt that electronic warfare and suppression of enemy air defenses would be better handled by unmanned air vehicles.
Then again, I've always felt that electronic warfare and suppression of enemy air defenses would be better handled by unmanned air vehicles.
They are looking at an EW version of the Super Hornet. (F-18G)
| QUOTE (LilithTaveril) | ||||||
You forgot the long-term bound air elemental maintaining a levitate spell. |
That's an interesting thought. The average elemental could not lift the tons of even a light fighter BUT it could certainly aid the manueverability, shifting the balance points at just the right momment.
| QUOTE (Snow_Fox) | ||||||||
That's an interesting thought. The average elemental could not lift the tons of even a light fighter BUT it could certainly aid the manueverability, shifting the balance points at just the right momment. |
This sounds like somthing I'd expect to see used by the NAN or Tir nations. Use a two seater aircraft with a Shammy or mage as your back-seater.
| QUOTE (Snow_Fox) |
| That's an interesting thought. The average elemental could not lift the tons of even a light fighter BUT it could certainly aid the manueverability, shifting the balance points at just the right momment. |
Fighter planes are already more than capable to maneuver a lot more violently than the human pilot can handle.
Using guard on the pilot to help him against g-forces would be great though.
Or use them offfensively. Military forces without magical protection would be so hosed. Fire elementals materializing inside fighter planes, tanks, even carriers, would be seriously bad news.
| QUOTE (Smokeskin) |
| Or use them offfensively. Military forces without magical protection would be so hosed. Fire elementals materializing inside fighter planes, tanks, even carriers, would be seriously bad news. |
I never thought of that. A shammy could outkill the best ATGM on the market just by getting a fire elemental inside an armored vehicle.
Thats a nice equalizer right there!
As a former Marine Aviation Ordnanceman, I believe I can speak with just a smidge of expertise. The F-14 while a very good bird was only a weapons platform for a missile system. (almost as an after thought, it was built) It's finest feature however was it's amazing climb angle at take off. The F-18, was/is a good replacement with advanced (over the aged F-14) avionics, and updated weapon systems.
| QUOTE (HullBreach) |
| Great, now when the hell are they going to retire the EA-6B? I was in a Marine Prowler squadron, and some of the airframes we're still flying are older than anybody in the squadrons! Then again, I've always felt that electronic warfare and suppression of enemy air defenses would be better handled by unmanned air vehicles. |
they Can't retire the queers. it's the only goddamn electronics platform in service, after those idiots in the air force decided to get rid of the EF-111 raven.
what we need is more long-loiter time CAS.
bring back the broncos and start building more A-10s for crissake'
They are not making nay more A-10's just prolonging thel ife of the existing one. Itv was supposed to be retired in the 1990's but it proved so wonderful in the first Gulf War that that the US government decided to keep it through the 2020's but by the time that decidsion was made, they had long disassembled the plant. So they are working to prolong the life of the existing birds. Remember the A-10 was made for Vietnam, but the war ended before it was ready.
Yeah, you have to love the A-10. What must the pilots have been thinking when they first saw them. They are not called Wart-Hogs for nothing. Ugly as sin but with a gun that makes every street-sammy wet in the crotch.
Anyone else play A-10: Tank Killer in the 80s?
Anyone else play A-10: Tank Killer in the 80s?
| QUOTE (Smokeskin) |
| Or use them offfensively. Military forces without magical protection would be so hosed. Fire elementals materializing inside fighter planes, tanks, even carriers, would be seriously bad news. |
It makes sense that even some of the older military vehicles out there would have biofiber retrofitting or something similar going on to prevent this kind of nukeage.
"Sarge, what's this green shit we're nailing to the walls?"
"Stow it, private... that shit'll keep you alive, if we bump up against the NANnies again. Keep the inside of this tin can from turning into a barbecue..."
| QUOTE (Firewall) |
| Yeah, you have to love the A-10. What must the pilots have been thinking when they first saw them. They are not called Wart-Hogs for nothing. Ugly as sin but with a gun that makes every street-sammy wet in the crotch. Anyone else play A-10: Tank Killer in the 80s? |
I did, along with F-15 Strike Eagle.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Hmmm.... How much does a Navy surplus fighter cost? |
it's alot of pepsi points
the United states military doesn't sell surplus equipment like jets/tanks/helicopters.
they mothball them or make sure they are destroyed.
the russians, on the other hand...
they mothball them or make sure they are destroyed.
the russians, on the other hand...
They generally destroy the key components to stop them working, although that didn't stop some bright spark being able to cobble together his own private AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunship from spare parts on the surplus market before they caught on. 
Apparently he rents it out to film and television companies now.
Larry Ellison tried to import a Mig jet fighter but it seems the government wouldn't grant him a license for it. The spoilsports.
Apparently he rents it out to film and television companies now.Larry Ellison tried to import a Mig jet fighter but it seems the government wouldn't grant him a license for it. The spoilsports.
The F-15 had a $30 million price tag in 1998.
The F-18 Hornet costed $35 million in 2003.
The F-18 Super Horner costed $59-66 million in 2003.
New F-22 go for $137 million dollars nowadays, though the early ones went for $339 million (including research costs, IIRC).
Meanwhile, the A-10 costs just $9.8 million dollars.
The F-18 Hornet costed $35 million in 2003.
The F-18 Super Horner costed $59-66 million in 2003.
New F-22 go for $137 million dollars nowadays, though the early ones went for $339 million (including research costs, IIRC).
Meanwhile, the A-10 costs just $9.8 million dollars.
A-10s have slightly different mission profiles...
The A10 is a slick design. The SR71 was prettier, of course .
And, just to spread my useless knowledge around, did you know there was an aircraft with a 75mm anti-tank cannon in WW II?
.And, just to spread my useless knowledge around, did you know there was an aircraft with a 75mm anti-tank cannon in WW II?
| QUOTE (HullBreach @ Aug 20 2006, 10:35 PM) |
| Great, now when the hell are they going to retire the EA-6B? I was in a Marine Prowler squadron, and some of the airframes we're still flying are older than anybody in the squadrons! |
Talk to some of the folks flying B-52's sometime. There was a guy going through pilot training recently who wanted to get assigned to them, because his father and grandfather had both flown them.
| QUOTE (Firewall) |
| Yeah, you have to love the A-10. What must the pilots have been thinking when they first saw them. |
Rumor is the first batch of pilots at the transition course were told they'd have to put a paper bag over her head when they climbed in. They got to love the Hog pretty quickly though.
I don't see why everybody says the A-10 is ugly. Is it just a military meme or something?
I think it looks nice. Sure it's not a swept-wing interceptor, but when it shows up over the battlefield, it's as beautiful as an angel of mercy (or a demon from hell, depending on which side you're on.)
I like it's looks, really. Especially the ones with shark-teeth.
I think it looks nice. Sure it's not a swept-wing interceptor, but when it shows up over the battlefield, it's as beautiful as an angel of mercy (or a demon from hell, depending on which side you're on.)
I like it's looks, really. Especially the ones with shark-teeth.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
| I don't see why everybody says the A-10 is ugly. Is it just a military meme or something? |
That's pretty much a stereotype that came from the fighter community. For years, fighters had been going for faster/higher performance, which came from pointy noses, streamlined designs, swept wings, and the most powerful engines you could put on it.
Then they made the Hog, with it's big round nose, turbofan engines (very fuel-effcient compared with other fighters, but also underpowered), and big straight wings.
It's superbly designed for its intended role of Close Air Support, but it went against every sense of "beautiful" that fighter pilots had had since WWII.
Those who fly it love it, as well as the guys on the ground. It's been around long enough, and proven itself so well that we don't really get any crap anymore about how it looks, most of the jokes we get are about how slow it is. lol
The E/F-18 Growler will replace the EA-6B as the Navy/Marine Corps Electronic Warfare aircraft.
The F/A-18 has always been designed as a fighter/attack aircraft, whereas the F-14 Tomcat was originally designed as a platform to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix. The F/A-18 was designed to replace both the F-14 and the A-6 Intruder, primarily because of the drawdown in defense funding during the end of the Cold War. The Navy could no longer afford to maintain supply chains for seven different types of aircraft, each with different avionics, engines, and weapons. Now, with only three basic airframes deploying on carrier strike groups not only is the supply chain cheaper, but manning can be reduced since fewer maintenance personnel are required to keep the air wing flying.
As for the A-10, while it may have been designed during the Viet Nam war, it was never meant to participate in that conflict. The slower Skyraiders and more agile A-4s performed CAS remarkably well during that conflict. The A-10 was designed around the GAU-8/A cannon, and meant to be employed against the massed Soviet tank divisions expected to roll towards Western Europe should the Warsaw Pact countries ever decide to go to war.
Both the Navy and the Marine Corps will employ some version of the F-35 JSF, with the AV-8B Harrier II being phased out in favor of the F-35 once IOC is reached.
Niether the Navy nor the Marine Corps has any plans to acquire the F-22.
The F/A-18 has always been designed as a fighter/attack aircraft, whereas the F-14 Tomcat was originally designed as a platform to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix. The F/A-18 was designed to replace both the F-14 and the A-6 Intruder, primarily because of the drawdown in defense funding during the end of the Cold War. The Navy could no longer afford to maintain supply chains for seven different types of aircraft, each with different avionics, engines, and weapons. Now, with only three basic airframes deploying on carrier strike groups not only is the supply chain cheaper, but manning can be reduced since fewer maintenance personnel are required to keep the air wing flying.
As for the A-10, while it may have been designed during the Viet Nam war, it was never meant to participate in that conflict. The slower Skyraiders and more agile A-4s performed CAS remarkably well during that conflict. The A-10 was designed around the GAU-8/A cannon, and meant to be employed against the massed Soviet tank divisions expected to roll towards Western Europe should the Warsaw Pact countries ever decide to go to war.
Both the Navy and the Marine Corps will employ some version of the F-35 JSF, with the AV-8B Harrier II being phased out in favor of the F-35 once IOC is reached.
Niether the Navy nor the Marine Corps has any plans to acquire the F-22.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) |
| the United states military doesn't sell surplus equipment like jets/tanks/helicopters. they mothball them or make sure they are destroyed. the russians, on the other hand... |
Then explain countless countries having F-4 Phantom IIs.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.